❓ Debate on the appropriateness of government borrowing for infrastructure projects like schools, roads, and hospitals, with accusations of hypocrisy and mismanagement exchanged between the Treasurer and the Leader of the Opposition.
AnsweredQoN 1018Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
Is the Treasurer aware of suggestions that it is not proper for the Government to be borrowing to build schools, roads and hospitals? Mr RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
Who said that? The Leader of the Opposition said on Paul Murray’s program last Friday - Debt, if it’s for assets which earn income - such as power stations and perhaps water plants - is proper and acceptable. But a significant part of the rise in this debt is just coming from the general operations of government. I wonder whether this man was a member of the Court Government or whether that was a figment of our imagination. He is rewriting history. Every Government in Western Australia since the Forrest Government has borrowed money to pay for important social and economic infrastructure. This Government is doing it and the Court Government also did it. It used debt funding for the $46 million Peel Health Campus, for the $50 million replacement of the Bunbury Regional Hospital and for the $382 million Graham Farmer Freeway. Those are just three examples of its debt-funding arrangements. Does the Leader of the Opposition not remember being part of the coalition cabinet budget committee? Were they income-generating investments? No, they were not. Were they proper and acceptable investments? Yes, they were. Debt in the general government sector is forecast to rise by $258.7 million next year. In addition, the Water Corporation, Western Power, the port authorities and other public non-financial corporations will contribute $391.8 million to net debt in 2002-03 because of their capital works activities. Capital investments include new high schools at Canning Vale, Eaton, Kinross and Mindarie, and the redevelopment of Mt Lawley Senior High School; new and replacement police facilities at Albany, Kensington, Laverton, Newman and Wanneroo; new buses, prisons, roads and the Perth convention centre. Which of those projects would the Leader of the Opposition scrap? Why does he not answer the question? Mr Barnett: I will if you shut up for a moment. Several members interjected. Mr Barnett: The first thing I would do would be to put the railway line through Kenwick, as the coalition proposed. That would save $300 million, and it would get to Mandurah on time. That is $300 million for a start. The other thing is that if I were asked what the debt is, I would say $891 million instead of $740 million - about which you misled this House last week. You didn’t even know by what level your debt increased. Mr RIPPER: I was hoping for a credible answer from the Leader of the Opposition, but I did not get one. If the Leader of the Opposition is concerned about our debate last week, I point out that it took place on the basis of the then published figures. We now have the latest published figures that we can debate. The important thing is, can we manage the debt? Similar to a home mortgage, it is all about whether we can meet the repayments. We can meet the repayments because we are running budget surpluses to provide part of the funding for the capital works program. We are doing something in that regard that the coalition could not do. It had only one debt management strategy; that is, to sell $4.8 million worth of assets. To return to the home analogy, that is like selling one’s lounge suite, fridge and washing machine to reduce the mortgage. It is not sustainable and does not address the underlying need to live within our means. What is improper and unacceptable is not to borrow to build schools and hospitals but to do what the coalition did; that is, to run deficits year after year. It had five out of eight deficits - four in a row. When the coalition did that, it was, in effect, using the credit card to pay the day-to-day expenses of government. It was not borrowing to build something that would last for a while, such as a school or a hospital, but using the credit card to pay for the day-to-day expenses of government. Mr Barnett: For example? Mr RIPPER: For example, five deficits out of eight budgets. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that that is what deficit means. If a Government is running a deficit, it is borrowing to fund the day-to-day expenses of government. That is what the coalition was doing. The Leader of the Opposition does not have moral authority to speak on the subject of borrowing because he was borrowing to fund day-to-day expenses of government.
Mr RIPPER replied: Who said that? The Leader of the Opposition said on Paul Murray’s program last Friday - Debt, if it’s for assets which earn income - such as power stations and perhaps water plants - is proper and acceptable. But a significant part of the rise in this debt is just coming from the general operations of government. I wonder whether this man was a member of the Court Government or whether that was a figment of our imagination. He is rewriting history. Every Government in Western Australia since the Forrest Government has borrowed money to pay for important social and economic infrastructure. This Government is doing it and the Court Government also did it. It used debt funding for the $46 million Peel Health Campus, for the $50 million replacement of the Bunbury Regional Hospital and for the $382 million Graham Farmer Freeway. Those are just three examples of its debt-funding arrangements. Does the Leader of the Opposition not remember being part of the coalition cabinet budget committee? Were they income-generating investments? No, they were not. Were they proper and acceptable investments? Yes, they were. Debt in the general government sector is forecast to rise by $258.7 million next year. In addition, the Water Corporation, Western Power, the port authorities and other public non-financial corporations will contribute $391.8 million to net debt in 2002-03 because of their capital works activities. Capital investments include new high schools at Canning Vale, Eaton, Kinross and Mindarie, and the redevelopment of Mt Lawley Senior High School; new and replacement police facilities at Albany, Kensington, Laverton, Newman and Wanneroo; new buses, prisons, roads and the Perth convention centre. Which of those projects would the Leader of the Opposition scrap? Why does he not answer the question? Mr Barnett: I will if you shut up for a moment. Several members interjected. Mr Barnett: The first thing I would do would be to put the railway line through Kenwick, as the coalition proposed. That would save $300 million, and it would get to Mandurah on time. That is $300 million for a start. The other thing is that if I were asked what the debt is, I would say $891 million instead of $740 million - about which you misled this House last week. You didn’t even know by what level your debt increased. Mr RIPPER: I was hoping for a credible answer from the Leader of the Opposition, but I did not get one. If the Leader of the Opposition is concerned about our debate last week, I point out that it took place on the basis of the then published figures. We now have the latest published figures that we can debate. The important thing is, can we manage the debt? Similar to a home mortgage, it is all about whether we can meet the repayments. We can meet the repayments because we are running budget surpluses to provide part of the funding for the capital works program. We are doing something in that regard that the coalition could not do. It had only one debt management strategy; that is, to sell $4.8 million worth of assets. To return to the home analogy, that is like selling one’s lounge suite, fridge and washing machine to reduce the mortgage. It is not sustainable and does not address the underlying need to live within our means. What is improper and unacceptable is not to borrow to build schools and hospitals but to do what the coalition did; that is, to run deficits year after year. It had five out of eight deficits - four in a row. When the coalition did that, it was, in effect, using the credit card to pay the day-to-day expenses of government. It was not borrowing to build something that would last for a while, such as a school or a hospital, but using the credit card to pay for the day-to-day expenses of government. Mr Barnett: For example? Mr RIPPER: For example, five deficits out of eight budgets. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that that is what deficit means. If a Government is running a deficit, it is borrowing to fund the day-to-day expenses of government. That is what the coalition was doing. The Leader of the Opposition does not have moral authority to speak on the subject of borrowing because he was borrowing to fund day-to-day expenses of government.
Who said that? The Leader of the Opposition said on Paul Murray’s program last Friday - Debt, if it’s for assets which earn income - such as power stations and perhaps water plants - is proper and acceptable. But a significant part of the rise in this debt is just coming from the general operations of government. I wonder whether this man was a member of the Court Government or whether that was a figment of our imagination. He is rewriting history. Every Government in Western Australia since the Forrest Government has borrowed money to pay for important social and economic infrastructure. This Government is doing it and the Court Government also did it. It used debt funding for the $46 million Peel Health Campus, for the $50 million replacement of the Bunbury Regional Hospital and for the $382 million Graham Farmer Freeway. Those are just three examples of its debt-funding arrangements. Does the Leader of the Opposition not remember being part of the coalition cabinet budget committee? Were they income-generating investments? No, they were not. Were they proper and acceptable investments? Yes, they were. Debt in the general government sector is forecast to rise by $258.7 million next year. In addition, the Water Corporation, Western Power, the port authorities and other public non-financial corporations will contribute $391.8 million to net debt in 2002-03 because of their capital works activities. Capital investments include new high schools at Canning Vale, Eaton, Kinross and Mindarie, and the redevelopment of Mt Lawley Senior High School; new and replacement police facilities at Albany, Kensington, Laverton, Newman and Wanneroo; new buses, prisons, roads and the Perth convention centre. Which of those projects would the Leader of the Opposition scrap? Why does he not answer the question? Mr Barnett: I will if you shut up for a moment. Several members interjected. Mr Barnett: The first thing I would do would be to put the railway line through Kenwick, as the coalition proposed. That would save $300 million, and it would get to Mandurah on time. That is $300 million for a start. The other thing is that if I were asked what the debt is, I would say $891 million instead of $740 million - about which you misled this House last week. You didn’t even know by what level your debt increased. Mr RIPPER: I was hoping for a credible answer from the Leader of the Opposition, but I did not get one. If the Leader of the Opposition is concerned about our debate last week, I point out that it took place on the basis of the then published figures. We now have the latest published figures that we can debate. The important thing is, can we manage the debt? Similar to a home mortgage, it is all about whether we can meet the repayments. We can meet the repayments because we are running budget surpluses to provide part of the funding for the capital works program. We are doing something in that regard that the coalition could not do. It had only one debt management strategy; that is, to sell $4.8 million worth of assets. To return to the home analogy, that is like selling one’s lounge suite, fridge and washing machine to reduce the mortgage. It is not sustainable and does not address the underlying need to live within our means. What is improper and unacceptable is not to borrow to build schools and hospitals but to do what the coalition did; that is, to run deficits year after year. It had five out of eight deficits - four in a row. When the coalition did that, it was, in effect, using the credit card to pay the day-to-day expenses of government. It was not borrowing to build something that would last for a while, such as a school or a hospital, but using the credit card to pay for the day-to-day expenses of government. Mr Barnett: For example? Mr RIPPER: For example, five deficits out of eight budgets. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that that is what deficit means. If a Government is running a deficit, it is borrowing to fund the day-to-day expenses of government. That is what the coalition was doing. The Leader of the Opposition does not have moral authority to speak on the subject of borrowing because he was borrowing to fund day-to-day expenses of government.
Debt in the general government sector is forecast to rise by $258.7 million next year. In addition, the Water Corporation, Western Power, the port authorities and other public non-financial corporations will contribute $391.8 million to net debt in 2002-03 because of their capital works activities. Capital investments include new high schools at Canning Vale, Eaton, Kinross and Mindarie, and the redevelopment of Mt Lawley Senior High School; new and replacement police facilities at Albany, Kensington, Laverton, Newman and Wanneroo; new buses, prisons, roads and the Perth convention centre. Which of those projects would the Leader of the Opposition scrap? Why does he not answer the question? Mr Barnett: I will if you shut up for a moment. Several members interjected. Mr Barnett: The first thing I would do would be to put the railway line through Kenwick, as the coalition proposed. That would save $300 million, and it would get to Mandurah on time. That is $300 million for a start. The other thing is that if I were asked what the debt is, I would say $891 million instead of $740 million - about which you misled this House last week. You didn’t even know by what level your debt increased. Mr RIPPER: I was hoping for a credible answer from the Leader of the Opposition, but I did not get one. If the Leader of the Opposition is concerned about our debate last week, I point out that it took place on the basis of the then published figures. We now have the latest published figures that we can debate. The important thing is, can we manage the debt? Similar to a home mortgage, it is all about whether we can meet the repayments. We can meet the repayments because we are running budget surpluses to provide part of the funding for the capital works program. We are doing something in that regard that the coalition could not do. It had only one debt management strategy; that is, to sell $4.8 million worth of assets. To return to the home analogy, that is like selling one’s lounge suite, fridge and washing machine to reduce the mortgage. It is not sustainable and does not address the underlying need to live within our means. What is improper and unacceptable is not to borrow to build schools and hospitals but to do what the coalition did; that is, to run deficits year after year. It had five out of eight deficits - four in a row. When the coalition did that, it was, in effect, using the credit card to pay the day-to-day expenses of government. It was not borrowing to build something that would last for a while, such as a school or a hospital, but using the credit card to pay for the day-to-day expenses of government. Mr Barnett: For example? Mr RIPPER: For example, five deficits out of eight budgets. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that that is what deficit means. If a Government is running a deficit, it is borrowing to fund the day-to-day expenses of government. That is what the coalition was doing. The Leader of the Opposition does not have moral authority to speak on the subject of borrowing because he was borrowing to fund day-to-day expenses of government.
Mr Barnett: I will if you shut up for a moment. Several members interjected. Mr Barnett: The first thing I would do would be to put the railway line through Kenwick, as the coalition proposed. That would save $300 million, and it would get to Mandurah on time. That is $300 million for a start. The other thing is that if I were asked what the debt is, I would say $891 million instead of $740 million - about which you misled this House last week. You didn’t even know by what level your debt increased. Mr RIPPER: I was hoping for a credible answer from the Leader of the Opposition, but I did not get one. If the Leader of the Opposition is concerned about our debate last week, I point out that it took place on the basis of the then published figures. We now have the latest published figures that we can debate. The important thing is, can we manage the debt? Similar to a home mortgage, it is all about whether we can meet the repayments. We can meet the repayments because we are running budget surpluses to provide part of the funding for the capital works program. We are doing something in that regard that the coalition could not do. It had only one debt management strategy; that is, to sell $4.8 million worth of assets. To return to the home analogy, that is like selling one’s lounge suite, fridge and washing machine to reduce the mortgage. It is not sustainable and does not address the underlying need to live within our means. What is improper and unacceptable is not to borrow to build schools and hospitals but to do what the coalition did; that is, to run deficits year after year. It had five out of eight deficits - four in a row. When the coalition did that, it was, in effect, using the credit card to pay the day-to-day expenses of government. It was not borrowing to build something that would last for a while, such as a school or a hospital, but using the credit card to pay for the day-to-day expenses of government. Mr Barnett: For example? Mr RIPPER: For example, five deficits out of eight budgets. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that that is what deficit means. If a Government is running a deficit, it is borrowing to fund the day-to-day expenses of government. That is what the coalition was doing. The Leader of the Opposition does not have moral authority to speak on the subject of borrowing because he was borrowing to fund day-to-day expenses of government.
Several members interjected. Mr Barnett: The first thing I would do would be to put the railway line through Kenwick, as the coalition proposed. That would save $300 million, and it would get to Mandurah on time. That is $300 million for a start. The other thing is that if I were asked what the debt is, I would say $891 million instead of $740 million - about which you misled this House last week. You didn’t even know by what level your debt increased. Mr RIPPER: I was hoping for a credible answer from the Leader of the Opposition, but I did not get one. If the Leader of the Opposition is concerned about our debate last week, I point out that it took place on the basis of the then published figures. We now have the latest published figures that we can debate. The important thing is, can we manage the debt? Similar to a home mortgage, it is all about whether we can meet the repayments. We can meet the repayments because we are running budget surpluses to provide part of the funding for the capital works program. We are doing something in that regard that the coalition could not do. It had only one debt management strategy; that is, to sell $4.8 million worth of assets. To return to the home analogy, that is like selling one’s lounge suite, fridge and washing machine to reduce the mortgage. It is not sustainable and does not address the underlying need to live within our means. What is improper and unacceptable is not to borrow to build schools and hospitals but to do what the coalition did; that is, to run deficits year after year. It had five out of eight deficits - four in a row. When the coalition did that, it was, in effect, using the credit card to pay the day-to-day expenses of government. It was not borrowing to build something that would last for a while, such as a school or a hospital, but using the credit card to pay for the day-to-day expenses of government. Mr Barnett: For example? Mr RIPPER: For example, five deficits out of eight budgets. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that that is what deficit means. If a Government is running a deficit, it is borrowing to fund the day-to-day expenses of government. That is what the coalition was doing. The Leader of the Opposition does not have moral authority to speak on the subject of borrowing because he was borrowing to fund day-to-day expenses of government.
Mr Barnett: The first thing I would do would be to put the railway line through Kenwick, as the coalition proposed. That would save $300 million, and it would get to Mandurah on time. That is $300 million for a start. The other thing is that if I were asked what the debt is, I would say $891 million instead of $740 million - about which you misled this House last week. You didn’t even know by what level your debt increased. Mr RIPPER: I was hoping for a credible answer from the Leader of the Opposition, but I did not get one. If the Leader of the Opposition is concerned about our debate last week, I point out that it took place on the basis of the then published figures. We now have the latest published figures that we can debate. The important thing is, can we manage the debt? Similar to a home mortgage, it is all about whether we can meet the repayments. We can meet the repayments because we are running budget surpluses to provide part of the funding for the capital works program. We are doing something in that regard that the coalition could not do. It had only one debt management strategy; that is, to sell $4.8 million worth of assets. To return to the home analogy, that is like selling one’s lounge suite, fridge and washing machine to reduce the mortgage. It is not sustainable and does not address the underlying need to live within our means. What is improper and unacceptable is not to borrow to build schools and hospitals but to do what the coalition did; that is, to run deficits year after year. It had five out of eight deficits - four in a row. When the coalition did that, it was, in effect, using the credit card to pay the day-to-day expenses of government. It was not borrowing to build something that would last for a while, such as a school or a hospital, but using the credit card to pay for the day-to-day expenses of government. Mr Barnett: For example? Mr RIPPER: For example, five deficits out of eight budgets. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that that is what deficit means. If a Government is running a deficit, it is borrowing to fund the day-to-day expenses of government. That is what the coalition was doing. The Leader of the Opposition does not have moral authority to speak on the subject of borrowing because he was borrowing to fund day-to-day expenses of government.
Mr RIPPER: I was hoping for a credible answer from the Leader of the Opposition, but I did not get one. If the Leader of the Opposition is concerned about our debate last week, I point out that it took place on the basis of the then published figures. We now have the latest published figures that we can debate. The important thing is, can we manage the debt? Similar to a home mortgage, it is all about whether we can meet the repayments. We can meet the repayments because we are running budget surpluses to provide part of the funding for the capital works program. We are doing something in that regard that the coalition could not do. It had only one debt management strategy; that is, to sell $4.8 million worth of assets. To return to the home analogy, that is like selling one’s lounge suite, fridge and washing machine to reduce the mortgage. It is not sustainable and does not address the underlying need to live within our means. What is improper and unacceptable is not to borrow to build schools and hospitals but to do what the coalition did; that is, to run deficits year after year. It had five out of eight deficits - four in a row. When the coalition did that, it was, in effect, using the credit card to pay the day-to-day expenses of government. It was not borrowing to build something that would last for a while, such as a school or a hospital, but using the credit card to pay for the day-to-day expenses of government. Mr Barnett: For example? Mr RIPPER: For example, five deficits out of eight budgets. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that that is what deficit means. If a Government is running a deficit, it is borrowing to fund the day-to-day expenses of government. That is what the coalition was doing. The Leader of the Opposition does not have moral authority to speak on the subject of borrowing because he was borrowing to fund day-to-day expenses of government.
What is improper and unacceptable is not to borrow to build schools and hospitals but to do what the coalition did; that is, to run deficits year after year. It had five out of eight deficits - four in a row. When the coalition did that, it was, in effect, using the credit card to pay the day-to-day expenses of government. It was not borrowing to build something that would last for a while, such as a school or a hospital, but using the credit card to pay for the day-to-day expenses of government. Mr Barnett: For example? Mr RIPPER: For example, five deficits out of eight budgets. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that that is what deficit means. If a Government is running a deficit, it is borrowing to fund the day-to-day expenses of government. That is what the coalition was doing. The Leader of the Opposition does not have moral authority to speak on the subject of borrowing because he was borrowing to fund day-to-day expenses of government.
Mr Barnett: For example? Mr RIPPER: For example, five deficits out of eight budgets. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that that is what deficit means. If a Government is running a deficit, it is borrowing to fund the day-to-day expenses of government. That is what the coalition was doing. The Leader of the Opposition does not have moral authority to speak on the subject of borrowing because he was borrowing to fund day-to-day expenses of government.
Mr RIPPER: For example, five deficits out of eight budgets. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that that is what deficit means. If a Government is running a deficit, it is borrowing to fund the day-to-day expenses of government. That is what the coalition was doing. The Leader of the Opposition does not have moral authority to speak on the subject of borrowing because he was borrowing to fund day-to-day expenses of government.
Mr RIPPER replied: Who said that? The Leader of the Opposition said on Paul Murray’s program last Friday - Debt, if it’s for assets which earn income - such as power stations and perhaps water plants - is proper and acceptable. But a significant part of the rise in this debt is just coming from the general operations of government. I wonder whether this man was a member of the Court Government or whether that was a figment of our imagination. He is rewriting history. Every Government in Western Australia since the Forrest Government has borrowed money to pay for important social and economic infrastructure. This Government is doing it and the Court Government also did it. It used debt funding for the $46 million Peel Health Campus, for the $50 million replacement of the Bunbury Regional Hospital and for the $382 million Graham Farmer Freeway. Those are just three examples of its debt-funding arrangements. Does the Leader of the Opposition not remember being part of the coalition cabinet budget committee? Were they income-generating investments? No, they were not. Were they proper and acceptable investments? Yes, they were. Debt in the general government sector is forecast to rise by $258.7 million next year. In addition, the Water Corporation, Western Power, the port authorities and other public non-financial corporations will contribute $391.8 million to net debt in 2002-03 because of their capital works activities. Capital investments include new high schools at Canning Vale, Eaton, Kinross and Mindarie, and the redevelopment of Mt Lawley Senior High School; new and replacement police facilities at Albany, Kensington, Laverton, Newman and Wanneroo; new buses, prisons, roads and the Perth convention centre. Which of those projects would the Leader of the Opposition scrap? Why does he not answer the question? Mr Barnett: I will if you shut up for a moment. Several members interjected. Mr Barnett: The first thing I would do would be to put the railway line through Kenwick, as the coalition proposed. That would save $300 million, and it would get to Mandurah on time. That is $300 million for a start. The other thing is that if I were asked what the debt is, I would say $891 million instead of $740 million - about which you misled this House last week. You didn’t even know by what level your debt increased. Mr RIPPER: I was hoping for a credible answer from the Leader of the Opposition, but I did not get one. If the Leader of the Opposition is concerned about our debate last week, I point out that it took place on the basis of the then published figures. We now have the latest published figures that we can debate. The important thing is, can we manage the debt? Similar to a home mortgage, it is all about whether we can meet the repayments. We can meet the repayments because we are running budget surpluses to provide part of the funding for the capital works program. We are doing something in that regard that the coalition could not do. It had only one debt management strategy; that is, to sell $4.8 million worth of assets. To return to the home analogy, that is like selling one’s lounge suite, fridge and washing machine to reduce the mortgage. It is not sustainable and does not address the underlying need to live within our means. What is improper and unacceptable is not to borrow to build schools and hospitals but to do what the coalition did; that is, to run deficits year after year. It had five out of eight deficits - four in a row. When the coalition did that, it was, in effect, using the credit card to pay the day-to-day expenses of government. It was not borrowing to build something that would last for a while, such as a school or a hospital, but using the credit card to pay for the day-to-day expenses of government. Mr Barnett: For example? Mr RIPPER: For example, five deficits out of eight budgets. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that that is what deficit means. If a Government is running a deficit, it is borrowing to fund the day-to-day expenses of government. That is what the coalition was doing. The Leader of the Opposition does not have moral authority to speak on the subject of borrowing because he was borrowing to fund day-to-day expenses of government.
Who said that? The Leader of the Opposition said on Paul Murray’s program last Friday - Debt, if it’s for assets which earn income - such as power stations and perhaps water plants - is proper and acceptable. But a significant part of the rise in this debt is just coming from the general operations of government. I wonder whether this man was a member of the Court Government or whether that was a figment of our imagination. He is rewriting history. Every Government in Western Australia since the Forrest Government has borrowed money to pay for important social and economic infrastructure. This Government is doing it and the Court Government also did it. It used debt funding for the $46 million Peel Health Campus, for the $50 million replacement of the Bunbury Regional Hospital and for the $382 million Graham Farmer Freeway. Those are just three examples of its debt-funding arrangements. Does the Leader of the Opposition not remember being part of the coalition cabinet budget committee? Were they income-generating investments? No, they were not. Were they proper and acceptable investments? Yes, they were. Debt in the general government sector is forecast to rise by $258.7 million next year. In addition, the Water Corporation, Western Power, the port authorities and other public non-financial corporations will contribute $391.8 million to net debt in 2002-03 because of their capital works activities. Capital investments include new high schools at Canning Vale, Eaton, Kinross and Mindarie, and the redevelopment of Mt Lawley Senior High School; new and replacement police facilities at Albany, Kensington, Laverton, Newman and Wanneroo; new buses, prisons, roads and the Perth convention centre. Which of those projects would the Leader of the Opposition scrap? Why does he not answer the question? Mr Barnett: I will if you shut up for a moment. Several members interjected. Mr Barnett: The first thing I would do would be to put the railway line through Kenwick, as the coalition proposed. That would save $300 million, and it would get to Mandurah on time. That is $300 million for a start. The other thing is that if I were asked what the debt is, I would say $891 million instead of $740 million - about which you misled this House last week. You didn’t even know by what level your debt increased. Mr RIPPER: I was hoping for a credible answer from the Leader of the Opposition, but I did not get one. If the Leader of the Opposition is concerned about our debate last week, I point out that it took place on the basis of the then published figures. We now have the latest published figures that we can debate. The important thing is, can we manage the debt? Similar to a home mortgage, it is all about whether we can meet the repayments. We can meet the repayments because we are running budget surpluses to provide part of the funding for the capital works program. We are doing something in that regard that the coalition could not do. It had only one debt management strategy; that is, to sell $4.8 million worth of assets. To return to the home analogy, that is like selling one’s lounge suite, fridge and washing machine to reduce the mortgage. It is not sustainable and does not address the underlying need to live within our means. What is improper and unacceptable is not to borrow to build schools and hospitals but to do what the coalition did; that is, to run deficits year after year. It had five out of eight deficits - four in a row. When the coalition did that, it was, in effect, using the credit card to pay the day-to-day expenses of government. It was not borrowing to build something that would last for a while, such as a school or a hospital, but using the credit card to pay for the day-to-day expenses of government. Mr Barnett: For example? Mr RIPPER: For example, five deficits out of eight budgets. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that that is what deficit means. If a Government is running a deficit, it is borrowing to fund the day-to-day expenses of government. That is what the coalition was doing. The Leader of the Opposition does not have moral authority to speak on the subject of borrowing because he was borrowing to fund day-to-day expenses of government.
Debt in the general government sector is forecast to rise by $258.7 million next year. In addition, the Water Corporation, Western Power, the port authorities and other public non-financial corporations will contribute $391.8 million to net debt in 2002-03 because of their capital works activities. Capital investments include new high schools at Canning Vale, Eaton, Kinross and Mindarie, and the redevelopment of Mt Lawley Senior High School; new and replacement police facilities at Albany, Kensington, Laverton, Newman and Wanneroo; new buses, prisons, roads and the Perth convention centre. Which of those projects would the Leader of the Opposition scrap? Why does he not answer the question? Mr Barnett: I will if you shut up for a moment. Several members interjected. Mr Barnett: The first thing I would do would be to put the railway line through Kenwick, as the coalition proposed. That would save $300 million, and it would get to Mandurah on time. That is $300 million for a start. The other thing is that if I were asked what the debt is, I would say $891 million instead of $740 million - about which you misled this House last week. You didn’t even know by what level your debt increased. Mr RIPPER: I was hoping for a credible answer from the Leader of the Opposition, but I did not get one. If the Leader of the Opposition is concerned about our debate last week, I point out that it took place on the basis of the then published figures. We now have the latest published figures that we can debate. The important thing is, can we manage the debt? Similar to a home mortgage, it is all about whether we can meet the repayments. We can meet the repayments because we are running budget surpluses to provide part of the funding for the capital works program. We are doing something in that regard that the coalition could not do. It had only one debt management strategy; that is, to sell $4.8 million worth of assets. To return to the home analogy, that is like selling one’s lounge suite, fridge and washing machine to reduce the mortgage. It is not sustainable and does not address the underlying need to live within our means. What is improper and unacceptable is not to borrow to build schools and hospitals but to do what the coalition did; that is, to run deficits year after year. It had five out of eight deficits - four in a row. When the coalition did that, it was, in effect, using the credit card to pay the day-to-day expenses of government. It was not borrowing to build something that would last for a while, such as a school or a hospital, but using the credit card to pay for the day-to-day expenses of government. Mr Barnett: For example? Mr RIPPER: For example, five deficits out of eight budgets. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that that is what deficit means. If a Government is running a deficit, it is borrowing to fund the day-to-day expenses of government. That is what the coalition was doing. The Leader of the Opposition does not have moral authority to speak on the subject of borrowing because he was borrowing to fund day-to-day expenses of government.
Mr Barnett: I will if you shut up for a moment. Several members interjected. Mr Barnett: The first thing I would do would be to put the railway line through Kenwick, as the coalition proposed. That would save $300 million, and it would get to Mandurah on time. That is $300 million for a start. The other thing is that if I were asked what the debt is, I would say $891 million instead of $740 million - about which you misled this House last week. You didn’t even know by what level your debt increased. Mr RIPPER: I was hoping for a credible answer from the Leader of the Opposition, but I did not get one. If the Leader of the Opposition is concerned about our debate last week, I point out that it took place on the basis of the then published figures. We now have the latest published figures that we can debate. The important thing is, can we manage the debt? Similar to a home mortgage, it is all about whether we can meet the repayments. We can meet the repayments because we are running budget surpluses to provide part of the funding for the capital works program. We are doing something in that regard that the coalition could not do. It had only one debt management strategy; that is, to sell $4.8 million worth of assets. To return to the home analogy, that is like selling one’s lounge suite, fridge and washing machine to reduce the mortgage. It is not sustainable and does not address the underlying need to live within our means. What is improper and unacceptable is not to borrow to build schools and hospitals but to do what the coalition did; that is, to run deficits year after year. It had five out of eight deficits - four in a row. When the coalition did that, it was, in effect, using the credit card to pay the day-to-day expenses of government. It was not borrowing to build something that would last for a while, such as a school or a hospital, but using the credit card to pay for the day-to-day expenses of government. Mr Barnett: For example? Mr RIPPER: For example, five deficits out of eight budgets. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that that is what deficit means. If a Government is running a deficit, it is borrowing to fund the day-to-day expenses of government. That is what the coalition was doing. The Leader of the Opposition does not have moral authority to speak on the subject of borrowing because he was borrowing to fund day-to-day expenses of government.
Several members interjected. Mr Barnett: The first thing I would do would be to put the railway line through Kenwick, as the coalition proposed. That would save $300 million, and it would get to Mandurah on time. That is $300 million for a start. The other thing is that if I were asked what the debt is, I would say $891 million instead of $740 million - about which you misled this House last week. You didn’t even know by what level your debt increased. Mr RIPPER: I was hoping for a credible answer from the Leader of the Opposition, but I did not get one. If the Leader of the Opposition is concerned about our debate last week, I point out that it took place on the basis of the then published figures. We now have the latest published figures that we can debate. The important thing is, can we manage the debt? Similar to a home mortgage, it is all about whether we can meet the repayments. We can meet the repayments because we are running budget surpluses to provide part of the funding for the capital works program. We are doing something in that regard that the coalition could not do. It had only one debt management strategy; that is, to sell $4.8 million worth of assets. To return to the home analogy, that is like selling one’s lounge suite, fridge and washing machine to reduce the mortgage. It is not sustainable and does not address the underlying need to live within our means. What is improper and unacceptable is not to borrow to build schools and hospitals but to do what the coalition did; that is, to run deficits year after year. It had five out of eight deficits - four in a row. When the coalition did that, it was, in effect, using the credit card to pay the day-to-day expenses of government. It was not borrowing to build something that would last for a while, such as a school or a hospital, but using the credit card to pay for the day-to-day expenses of government. Mr Barnett: For example? Mr RIPPER: For example, five deficits out of eight budgets. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that that is what deficit means. If a Government is running a deficit, it is borrowing to fund the day-to-day expenses of government. That is what the coalition was doing. The Leader of the Opposition does not have moral authority to speak on the subject of borrowing because he was borrowing to fund day-to-day expenses of government.
Mr Barnett: The first thing I would do would be to put the railway line through Kenwick, as the coalition proposed. That would save $300 million, and it would get to Mandurah on time. That is $300 million for a start. The other thing is that if I were asked what the debt is, I would say $891 million instead of $740 million - about which you misled this House last week. You didn’t even know by what level your debt increased. Mr RIPPER: I was hoping for a credible answer from the Leader of the Opposition, but I did not get one. If the Leader of the Opposition is concerned about our debate last week, I point out that it took place on the basis of the then published figures. We now have the latest published figures that we can debate. The important thing is, can we manage the debt? Similar to a home mortgage, it is all about whether we can meet the repayments. We can meet the repayments because we are running budget surpluses to provide part of the funding for the capital works program. We are doing something in that regard that the coalition could not do. It had only one debt management strategy; that is, to sell $4.8 million worth of assets. To return to the home analogy, that is like selling one’s lounge suite, fridge and washing machine to reduce the mortgage. It is not sustainable and does not address the underlying need to live within our means. What is improper and unacceptable is not to borrow to build schools and hospitals but to do what the coalition did; that is, to run deficits year after year. It had five out of eight deficits - four in a row. When the coalition did that, it was, in effect, using the credit card to pay the day-to-day expenses of government. It was not borrowing to build something that would last for a while, such as a school or a hospital, but using the credit card to pay for the day-to-day expenses of government. Mr Barnett: For example? Mr RIPPER: For example, five deficits out of eight budgets. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that that is what deficit means. If a Government is running a deficit, it is borrowing to fund the day-to-day expenses of government. That is what the coalition was doing. The Leader of the Opposition does not have moral authority to speak on the subject of borrowing because he was borrowing to fund day-to-day expenses of government.
Mr RIPPER: I was hoping for a credible answer from the Leader of the Opposition, but I did not get one. If the Leader of the Opposition is concerned about our debate last week, I point out that it took place on the basis of the then published figures. We now have the latest published figures that we can debate. The important thing is, can we manage the debt? Similar to a home mortgage, it is all about whether we can meet the repayments. We can meet the repayments because we are running budget surpluses to provide part of the funding for the capital works program. We are doing something in that regard that the coalition could not do. It had only one debt management strategy; that is, to sell $4.8 million worth of assets. To return to the home analogy, that is like selling one’s lounge suite, fridge and washing machine to reduce the mortgage. It is not sustainable and does not address the underlying need to live within our means. What is improper and unacceptable is not to borrow to build schools and hospitals but to do what the coalition did; that is, to run deficits year after year. It had five out of eight deficits - four in a row. When the coalition did that, it was, in effect, using the credit card to pay the day-to-day expenses of government. It was not borrowing to build something that would last for a while, such as a school or a hospital, but using the credit card to pay for the day-to-day expenses of government. Mr Barnett: For example? Mr RIPPER: For example, five deficits out of eight budgets. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that that is what deficit means. If a Government is running a deficit, it is borrowing to fund the day-to-day expenses of government. That is what the coalition was doing. The Leader of the Opposition does not have moral authority to speak on the subject of borrowing because he was borrowing to fund day-to-day expenses of government.
What is improper and unacceptable is not to borrow to build schools and hospitals but to do what the coalition did; that is, to run deficits year after year. It had five out of eight deficits - four in a row. When the coalition did that, it was, in effect, using the credit card to pay the day-to-day expenses of government. It was not borrowing to build something that would last for a while, such as a school or a hospital, but using the credit card to pay for the day-to-day expenses of government. Mr Barnett: For example? Mr RIPPER: For example, five deficits out of eight budgets. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that that is what deficit means. If a Government is running a deficit, it is borrowing to fund the day-to-day expenses of government. That is what the coalition was doing. The Leader of the Opposition does not have moral authority to speak on the subject of borrowing because he was borrowing to fund day-to-day expenses of government.
Mr Barnett: For example? Mr RIPPER: For example, five deficits out of eight budgets. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that that is what deficit means. If a Government is running a deficit, it is borrowing to fund the day-to-day expenses of government. That is what the coalition was doing. The Leader of the Opposition does not have moral authority to speak on the subject of borrowing because he was borrowing to fund day-to-day expenses of government.
Mr RIPPER: For example, five deficits out of eight budgets. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that that is what deficit means. If a Government is running a deficit, it is borrowing to fund the day-to-day expenses of government. That is what the coalition was doing. The Leader of the Opposition does not have moral authority to speak on the subject of borrowing because he was borrowing to fund day-to-day expenses of government.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.